Waltz With Bashir: Damaged Goods

Although a magnificent piece of art, this film is damaging to Israel.

The other night, I watched on TV as various leaders in the Israeli film industry partied at an event held in honor of Ari Folman's documentary, "Waltz With Bashir".

"Wouldn't it be great if we got the Oscar?" asked a beaming Channel 2 presenter after the footage was shown.

My answer is that, no, it would not be great. It would be terrible. This film has done enough damage already, and after the Oscars it is going to do a lot, lot more.

The film is by any standards a magnificent piece of art. If Ari Folman had climbed into a time machine, gone back 20 years, and taken a professional cameraman with him into the Lebanon war, he could not have come back with more emotive and meaningful material than what he has recalled from memory and projected onto the screen. And his film is a work of great emotional depth and sensitivity. For the purposes of internal national debate, this is a film that every Israeli should see.

No reason, rhyme or context is given for the war. No enemy is depicted to speak of.

However, a glaring omission is immediately apparent at the film's beginning, which intensifies as it progresses: no reason, rhyme or context is given for the war. No enemy is depicted to speak of. Although the faces of Israeli friends, soldiers, therapists and politicians are lovingly illustrated in close-up all the way through the film, the enemy being engaged has no name and no face. Only once in the film is a teenage boy with an RPG on his back, brought into focus, and it is not clear who he belongs to, or what he is fighting for.

The eerie backdrop against which the film plays out is that the enemy hardly exists at all, or that he is a figment of the Israeli imagination. Soldiers are cut to pieces by sniper fire, but who are the snipers? Gunmen shoot down from balconies and roofs, but which army or political faction do they represent? Palestinian terrorists are sought in streets, orchards and refugee camps but why are they relevant to Israel, if they are operating in Lebanon? A viewer who knows nothing of the background to this conflict could be forgiven for believing that thousands of Israeli soldiers simply woke up one morning and decided to go to Lebanon to kill people.

For this reason quite a lot of Israelis have serious issues with his film and do not think it should be screened at all, let alone win an Academy Award. A friend of mine who watched the film at Cinemateque Jerusalem overheard viewers in the rows behind her say they were appalled by the film's lack of context. An Australian Christian told me even more bluntly, "The film confirms for Australians what they already know: Israelis are warmongering murderers."

Ari Folman must have known when he made "Waltz with Bashir" that films do not get screened in a vacuum. This film is up for an Academy Award at a time when virulent hatred of Israel, constant comparisons between the IDF and the Nazis, purposeful omission of the moral and military background to our wars, and a deliberate disregard for our civilians and their safety, have begun to flourish across Western Europe, Scandinavia and North America. The film plays into the hands of the worst of our detractors, depicting us as mindless invaders who care little for human life.

The success of the film can therefore not be wholly attributed to its brilliance as a piece of art. It is linked to the delighted glee with which those who hate us take it as evidence of our perfidy. Perhaps Mr. Folman did not understand this when he made the film. Israeli filmmakers are after all remarkably naive when it comes to how Israel is perceived abroad and the power of the new malice that has been unleashed upon Israelis and all Jews everywhere.

Many will argue that Folman's creativity should not be hampered by political and cultural considerations. I say this is nonsense. All of us who function in the adult world, have to weigh up the implications of everything we do before take a course of action. None of us are exempt from this arena of human ethics. Not even documentary film directors

And why is there an ethical question here? Because Israel is, in this decade, not just fighting a war with Hamas, a war with Hezbollah and by extension a war with Iran. It is fighting a war of ideas. A war in which it is being depicted as the sole cause of misery and suffering in the Middle East, a war in which the justification for its existence has been called into question. A war which is being felt by every European Jewish schoolgirl who is no longer safe coming home on the bus, and every American Jewish student coping with hostility and violence on campus. Even if Ari Folman cares nothing for these things, they will affect him in the end anyway. By the time the next generation of Israeli kids in Folman's family is considering their options for university, most of the campuses in Europe will be probably out of bounds to them. And it will only be a few years before Mr. Folman himself, as an ex-fighter of the IDF, will be prosecuted for war crimes if he so much as touches down in a British airport.

We will be debating over the next decade whether Ari Folman has, with his film, done his country a great service or caused it irreparable damage. My vote is for the latter. With all due to respect to him as the gifted filmmaker he is, it would have been better for him to deal with his Lebanon ghosts in the psychotherapist's office. I am not being sarcastic or disparaging here, God forbid. As I have both a son and a daughter now serving in the IDF, no one could be more respectful (and more fearful) of the emotional damage done to Mr. Folman than I.

But if I could meet him in person I would ask him if the artistic expression of his feelings on film are worth all the rage and hatred that will be stirred up against Israel as a result.

About the Author

Visitor Comments: 29

(29)
Susan,
March 9, 2009 1:13 AM

It''s exile thinking to worry what the goyim will think. This film was for us!

If you live among goyim, fine, worry what the goyim will think. This film was made by Israelis, for Israelis, and it accomplished its goals beautifully. You want a film for the galut? Make it yourself. Israelis have enough to deal with, without having to listen to the kibbitzing from abroad. They have a right to make art for domestic consumption, and a right to be proud when the work produced is appreciated for its artistic merit by the world. My only complaint was that the translations in the subtitles were not so accurate.

(28)
M.L.,
March 4, 2009 2:48 AM

This article misses the point of the film and shows a lack of understanding about film in general.
I saw the film and clearly understood it was meant to illustrate the post traumatic stress of Israeli soldiers. The "glaring omission" that the film does not address why there was a war and who the enemy is does not make a difference to the effect of the war on those who endure combat.
A film that is not a documentary is meant to capture a particular experience (in this case ptsd). It could not possibly include all information without losing it's story line and impact. In fact, including that information would make it inaccessible to those who most need to see it to understand that Israelis are not mosnsters, they are as effected by war as anyone who is humane.
Films about the Shoah, for example, can be deeply moving and effective without including how Hitler came to power.

(27)
Jack,
March 2, 2009 3:56 AM

What Mr. Folman's film has going for it is the fact that he lives in a country that allows him the feedom to make it. Your fear is that those who do not remember history will interpret this film in the wrong way. You go on to project into the future that Europe will allow its institutions of higher learning to ban Jews and that Great Britain will go so far as to arrest Mr. Folman for war crimes if he sets foot in England. You are ramping up paranoia. It is better to concentrate on the present anti-Semitism in this world. It is better to fight the war of ideas by showing the agents of intolerance for what they are and ask loudly and persistently: Where are their voices of dissent among their own people? Where are their voices that question their own authority? Where are the people among them who say violence has not worked and will never work against Israel? Where are their voices of common sense? Where are their voices of peace? If these extremists have no words for this, then their silence will speak volumes. If they try to change the subject through warlike noises, then they are showing themselves to be cowards.

(26)
Anonymous,
March 2, 2009 1:29 AM

Israel needs to realize that she has some of her worst critics in Israel.Israel has a new P.M.who may be able to help set things right.Israel has,never,been a war mongering nation.Sincerly.

(25)
Mayim,
March 1, 2009 8:34 AM

It got me to ask about context

For people who think, films like this provide an entry into areas they don't know much about and it allows them to delve deep and understand. For those who don't want to think, anything can be used in the cause of antisemetism and antizionism.

(24)
Eli,
February 25, 2009 10:04 AM

This movie wont convert anyone into being an antisemite and it will not "heal" any antisemite from his hate. The movie is not intended to determine who's fault the war was. Everyone who hates the jews because of this movie hated them already long before.

(23)
Monica,
February 23, 2009 2:20 PM

To all the art lovers and especially to Haim

Being an artist does not give anyone the license to disregard the good of the community in favor of art, this is narcissism at its best. This movie was a star for the antisemites including the Jewish ones, because they don't love anything better than pointing the finger: "see, i told you even the jews say what i say!". As an art piece it may be great, but as a piece of self hatred is damaging to us and with the soaring antisemitism in the world today we are not in need of benzene added to fire. And the better it is artistically the more the damage.
Haim did you live in the Galil, or have you forgotten the daily katiusha that PLO rained on Kiriat Shmone and other northern settlements from Lebanon, just like SDEROT? You are propagating ideological lies with your comment, "the Jews did it"

(22)
Michele Kingsley,
February 23, 2009 10:27 AM

Why do we feel obligated to tear ourselves apart?

Why is it that, with no scarcity of anti-semitism around the globe, we Jews have to tear ourselves apart? I know that we try to demand higher standards for ourselves when it comes to dealing with our enemies. But why do we chastise only ourselves? The film certainly portrays deep emotion concerning the war in Lebanon. But we see only one side's feelings of all these emotions. Ari Folman must take into account the damage of his actions. The film will certainly have a negative effect, where no prodding is needed, on the State of Israel. Before taking any action, shouldn't one ask oneself: What will result from this? and what result do I want? I can't believe that Ari Folman wanted to do harm to the State of Israel. I think he was probably just misdirected.

(21)
Denis le furet,
February 23, 2009 9:16 AM

I remember the context

I'm a 47 year old Canadian and I remember the context of these events and the political fallout afterwards. I thought it was a brilliant and visually engrossing film. And the ending, when drawings morph into documentary footage, SLAM, reality. Not since Deer Hunter have I sat there in the theatre, credits rolling and mouth open. I saw it with my brother (to who I explained the context) and it was like 5 minutes before we said a word to each other. I took it as a personal quest or a spiritual/psychological road trip rather than a documentary that explains everything you ever needed to know about Sabra & Shatilla. As to effect it will have on people, I believe that people who have issues with Jews will see exactly what they already see no matter what you show them. You have allies and you have enemies. Allies know what's what and enemies aren't listening.

(20)
Katie Green,
February 23, 2009 7:38 AM

Clarification

Thank you all for your very interesting comments about my article. I do want to clarify one thing - the Australian Christian I mentioned truly loves Israel. She was voicing her concerns about what she felt the effect would be in Australia. I am sorry that this was not clear. And thank you to our supportive Christian friends everywhere.

(19)
Anonymous,
February 23, 2009 3:36 AM

well said katie

(18)
Mark Leaman,
February 23, 2009 1:06 AM

Good comments seen in the eye by a Zionist

B"H the film did not win an Oscar it would have been nice to say Israel did win but this was not the film to win for Israel.
But to late or not its on the market for people to see and make their own minds up, may be every one will not see an anti Israel side but good art work instead.

(17)
nr,
February 23, 2009 12:47 AM

Haim, you missed it

The gist of the article isn''t whether it was a good *or* bad war, but whether this was a good *or* bad film - showing a point of view without context. It''s like Leni Riefenstal''s Trimuph of the Will not mentioning the evil of the Nazi regime. Waltzing with Bashir does nothing to open dialogue - it just solidifies the minds of anti-semites everywhere. I''m glad it didn''t win also. Check out what movies have won best foreign film and you''ll realize why the Isreali garbage doesn''t have a chance.

(16)
Anonymous,
February 23, 2009 12:32 AM

Missing the Point

First – a discloser: I participated in the first Lebanese war as an IDF reservist. It was my second time as a combatant in Lebanon, the first time being Operation Litani in 1978. Also, at the time, I was living in a kibbutz on the Lebanese border. It was a period when we received many Katyusha rockets from our neighbors to the north, and we frequently had to respond to terrorists crossing the border or entering Israel from the sea.
I agree with Ms. Green's artistic assessment of the film (though I would use fewer superlatives), however, I respectfully dissent from her criticisms. Mr. Folman's film is about personal perspectives of individual participants in the conflict. Whether or not you agree with the justifications for the operation (and I believe it was justified), you cannot argue the personal experience and traumas of those who were there. Saying that the film should be tempered by geopolitical background or images of enemy atrocities is to miss the point of the personal story.
I do not know whether anti-Israel propagandists will try to exploit the film to score points, but I suspect that there is not much to fear. To paraphrase Ms. Green, some people may use the film to confirm what they already know. The film will probably not change anyone's opinion of Israel's justification for past or current actions. However, the film does highlight the freedom of expression available to Israelis of all opinions.
This film will make no difference to Israel's image in the world, except to raise awareness of our film industry. Self-examination and a willingness to re-evaluate past actions is a testament to strength of moral character, not a weakness. People who don't understand are people who have never had to make hard moral choices.

(15)
Barbara,
February 22, 2009 6:06 PM

honesty versus propaganda

You don't need propaganda pieces. Nobody believes them. I have read every book I can find on the situation in the Middle East and I have discovered that the Arabs are wonderful people who never make mistakes or do anything wrong. But teeny tiny little Israel always picks on them. I have also discovered that Israel is sometimes in the wrong and that those wrongs are admitted. To err is human and Israel comes out sounding very human. The Arabs, on the other hand, sound unbelievable.
I am thinking you worry too much about public opinion and not enough about God's opinion. I used to wonder why the history of Israel started out with 400 years of slavery. No public support there. Was it needed? or did God just take his people out, how and when he chose to? And was that to teach you to depend on him, rather than public support (or anything else)?

(14)
Carin Staines,
February 22, 2009 4:35 PM

people should speak for themsevles

I was outraged as the comments by the so called Christain Australian. As an Australian who is a Christain, I most emphatically do not agree with such statements about Isral being a warmongering nation. Bigoted people only ever hear one viewpoint - the one they want to believe.
Israel is definitely not warmongering If the film displayed Moslems in your position, can you imagine the outrage?
Israel, read your Bible. The prophecies of HaShem promise a great future for you. Read it and beleive it.

(13)
Anda M. Rosen,
February 22, 2009 3:58 PM

all of Europe were complicit in the Holocaust, where were the protests?

Genocide of the innocent is ugly and wrong. The massacre committed by Lebanese Christians happened on September 16, 82, not by Israelis but by some vindictive Lebanese who had suffered because of PLO brutality. It is important to add, that Israel responded immediately within a few days, on September 25, 300,000 Israelis marched in Israel's streets in protest against the carnage. It is important to note: While, not 800 died, but 6 million Jews were dying in Europe, All the Europeans, that did not actively participate, but either enabled or looked away while we were being massacred into ditches, gas chambers and crematoria, where were they, what did they do, when they smelled the stench of burning bodies? They cheered Hitler. What were they doing to stop it? They cheered Hitler. Every person in my hometown Sambor, Poland saw with their own eyes daily massacres, heard with their own ears the shots and the screams, where were the protests?-Yes, Ari Folman, it's time to make a consciousness wrenching film about the rest of the world that was and is still complicit in genocide, so much more directly.

(12)
Mordechai,
February 22, 2009 3:55 PM

What about Beaufort, the movie?

Not showing who Israel's enemies are does not compromise the quality of a movie. In the movie, Beaufort, the enemy was never once shown. Nevertheless, it was a masterpiece. Anyone who watched the movie understood the context in which it was shown. Similarly, all know that Israel's intention in invading Lebanon was to drive the PLO from its borders.

(11)
Ruth,
February 22, 2009 3:19 PM

Australian christian

The Australian christian that made the comment that "Israelis are warmongering murderers" certainly is not truly a christian indeed.

(10)
Aaron,
February 22, 2009 2:22 PM

Trouble is spreading like wildfire for the future....

When I first saw this film, I was attracted to the style and …….Immediately deep misgivings pulled a shadow over my heart like a cloud of future troubles.
With Britain, as a nation, blind to any balanced representation of Israel, which is lacking in the output in all of the media services, (remember I grew up in a country which pretended Ireland did not exist, the weather only existed for Northern Ireland, it was a blank map on the BBC, “The Republic” was never mentioned, as children it was not even taught in Geography, History, or any other spectrum of educational format which is used to get information absorbed into the minds of this nation, so don’t expect a structured understanding from the average Britain, because I can guarantee you he wont do the research to evaluate his awareness of the geopolitical religious influences affecting the images he see’s on “TV” and in the pages of “The Sun”, the same images and headlines that he will make a judgment on over a “pint or a “fag break” on the scaffold and spread his “wisdom” like a virus to colleagues who don’t read the “tabloids” or watch the news who then cause intimidation upon other members of the British public. Now imagine Britain as a conscious state and try to perceive how that limited education, what understanding that human being has of the world, his lack of empathy and desire to fill the blank repetitiveness, nature abhors a vacuum and it is easier to destroy than create, so we end up with violence and hatred spreading ( I have been targeted in the past, I have worked on the scaffolding, I have an education) it is only when you walk through the different borders of cultural identity that you become aware of the true level of ignorance in society and this does not help, those who feed the mind with images, sound and words have a responsibility to know how, or try to understand how, that will effect the malleable and the innocent walking in peace down a dark street until violence comes around a corner…..

(9)
jgarbuz,
February 22, 2009 1:06 PM

It shows that Israel is a true democracy.

While it is true that such films may
engender a certain lowering of morale and defeatism, it also shows that Israel is made up of moral people who do not glorify militarism and hate war. Having said that, it's time for some Israeli filmmakers to try to be more fair and balanced. It's been a very long time since we've seen a pro-Israel film that shows what Israel is really up against.

(8)
jo,
February 22, 2009 12:21 PM

I agree wholeheartedly

I only had to see a few minutes of this film to be filled with disqust. When I heard it was up for an academy award, I became suspect due to the venue of it's acceptance. Enough said!
HOw can Israel defend itself when she has friends like this who are really enemies within her own camp. It reminds me of the 14th verse of the 14th chapter of Zechariah. I weep for Israel, yet I am not Jewish.

(7)
Haim,
February 22, 2009 11:54 AM

There was no reason for the war...

The 1st Lebanon War was intitiated by Begin and Sharon to prevent a peace process. There had been a truce on the Lebanesse border for over 12 months until Israel broke it in June 1982. The withdrawl from Sinai happend only six weeks before the Israeli invasion. The Israeli government was afraid that the PLO would do a Sadat, recognize Israel and ask for peace. This would have destroyed the consensus inside Israel for holding on to the Occupied Territories and would have severly weakened the settle movement. Now over 25 year later Occupation has evolved into Apartheit. We have an out and out fascist leeading the third largest party in the Knesset.
Kol HaKavod to Ari Folman, for his courages work. Let'shope for an Oscar.

(6)
Marc,
February 22, 2009 10:17 AM

To PerryEliezer

That childish remark belongs in a preschool setting.

(5)
m.koan,
February 22, 2009 9:25 AM

AAri Folman and his like.

Thank you for your article but, unfortunately, as usual, the harm has already been done. Here in France where Jew hatred among the majority of intellectuals is at seething point, this film has been described as Israel''s attempt at purging itself of the crimes the Israelis committed in Lebanon. Since it came out leftists do their utmost to get this film viewed by the maximum amount of people, in townhalls, free of charge, so as to get Jew hatred to spread like wildfire. They are having great success. I won''t repeat the remarks I heard at the end of the film. Unfortunately among our people there are many too many Ari Folmans. And they will cause our downfall, more than anything else.

(4)
PerryEliezer,
February 22, 2009 9:17 AM

You....

The whole article is just a jealous cry. Get over it, lady...

(3)
yaron,
February 22, 2009 8:20 AM

its not damaging

u can admit u made a mistake in ur past.this only make u better.if israel was iran then the movie would have never been made....israel inspire to be more like usa and europ and not like iran or north korea!!!

(2)
Marsha,
February 22, 2009 7:44 AM

I, too, am going to watch the Oscars tonight in hopes that this movie loses and fades away. Israel does not need an award for this film. There's enough anti-Israel sentiment in the world already. Between this and Bar Rafaeli, how much more "nachas" can we survive?

(1)
jamie,
February 22, 2009 3:35 AM

Context is Everything

The Sabra and Chatilla massacres are such a sensitive, complicated subject. Making such a personal, subjective film about one's soldier search thru memories with that as the backdrop distorts the reality of what happened. It is easy for someone to watch the film and think israeli soldiers are not all that different from Nazis, G-d forbid. I applaud ari folman's art, and cry at his disregard for israel's image abroad, and the need for his 'handwringing'

I'm told that it's a mitzvah to become intoxicated on Purim. This puzzles me, because to my understanding, it is not considered a good thing to become intoxicated, period.

One of the characteristics of the at-risk youth is their use of drugs, including alcohol. In my experience, getting drunk doesn't reveal secrets. It makes people act stupid and irresponsible, doing things they would never do if they were sober. Also, I know a lot about the horrible health effects of abusing alcohol, because I work at a research center that focuses on addiction and substance abuse.

Also, I am an alcoholic, which means that if I drink, very bad things happen. I have not had a drink in 22 years, and I have no intention of starting now. Surely there must be instances where a person is excused from the obligation to drink. I don't see how Judaism could ever promote the idea of getting drunk. It just doesn't seem right.

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Putting aside for a moment all the spiritual and philosophical reasons for getting drunk on Purim, this remains an issue of common sense. Of course, teenagers should be warned of the dangers of acute alcohol ingestion. Of course, nobody should drink and drive. Of course, nobody should become so drunk to the point of negligence in performing mitzvot. And of course, a recovering alcoholic should not partake of alcohol on Purim.

Indeed, the Code of Jewish Law explicitly says that if one suspects the drinking may affect him negatively, then he should NOT drink.

Getting drunk on Purim is actually one of the most difficult mitzvot to do correctly. A person should only drink if it will lead to positive spiritual results - e.g. under the loosening affect of the alcohol, greater awareness will surface of the love for God and Torah found deep in the heart. (Perhaps if we were on a higher spiritual level, we wouldn't need to get drunk!)

Yet the Talmud still speaks of an obligation on Purim of "not knowing the difference between Blessed is Mordechai and Cursed is Haman." How then should a person who doesn't drink get the point of “not knowing”? Simple - just go to sleep! (Rama - OC 695:2)

All this applies to individuals. But the question remains - does drinking on Purim adversely affect the collective social health of the Jewish community?

The aversion to alcoholism is engrained into Jewish consciousness from a number of Biblical and Talmudic sources. There are the rebuking words of prophets - Isaiah 28:1, Hosea 3:1 with Rashi, and Amos 6:6, and the Zohar says that "The wicked stray after wine" (Midrash Ne'alam Parshat Vayera).

It is well known that the rate of alcoholism among Jews has historically been very low. Numerous medical, psychological and sociological studies have confirmed this. The connection between Judaism and sobriety is so evident, that the following conversation is reported by Lawrence Kelemen in "Permission to Receive":

When Dr. Mark Keller, editor of the Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, commented that "practically all Jews do drink, and yet all the world knows that Jews hardly ever become alcoholics," his colleague, Dr. Howard Haggard, director of Yale's Laboratory of Applied Physiology, jokingly proposed converting alcoholics to the Jewish religion in order to immerse them in a culture with healthy attitudes toward drinking!

Perhaps we could suggest that it is precisely because of the use of alcohol in traditional ceremonies (Kiddush, Bris, Purim, etc.), that Jews experience such low rates of alcoholism. This ceremonial usage may actually act like an inoculation - i.e. injecting a safe amount that keeps the disease away.

Of course, as we said earlier, all this needs to be monitored with good common sense. Yet in my personal experience - having been in the company of Torah scholars who were totally drunk on Purim - they acted with extreme gentleness and joy. Amid the Jewish songs and beautiful words of Torah, every year the event is, for me, very special.

Adar 12 marks the dedication of Herod's renovations on the second Holy Temple in Jerusalem in 11 BCE. Herod was king of Judea in the first century BCE who constructed grand projects like the fortresses at Masada and Herodium, the city of Caesarea, and fortifications around the old city of Jerusalem. The most ambitious of Herod's projects was the re-building of the Temple, which was in disrepair after standing over 300 years. Herod's renovations included a huge man-made platform that remains today the largest man-made platform in the world. It took 10,000 men 10 years just to build the retaining walls around the Temple Mount; the Western Wall that we know today is part of that retaining wall. The Temple itself was a phenomenal site, covered in gold and marble. As the Talmud says, "He who has not seen Herod's building, has never in his life seen a truly grand building."

Some people gauge the value of themselves by what they own. But in reality, the entire concept of ownership of possessions is based on an illusion. When you obtain a material object, it does not become part of you. Ownership is merely your right to use specific objects whenever you wish.

How unfortunate is the person who has an ambition to cleave to something impossible to cleave to! Such a person will not obtain what he desires and will experience suffering.

Fortunate is the person whose ambition it is to acquire personal growth that is independent of external factors. Such a person will lead a happy and rewarding life.

With exercising patience you could have saved yourself 400 zuzim (Berachos 20a).

This Talmudic proverb arose from a case where someone was fined 400 zuzim because he acted in undue haste and insulted some one.

I was once pulling into a parking lot. Since I was a bit late for an important appointment, I was terribly annoyed that the lead car in the procession was creeping at a snail's pace. The driver immediately in front of me was showing his impatience by sounding his horn. In my aggravation, I wanted to join him, but I saw no real purpose in adding to the cacophony.

When the lead driver finally pulled into a parking space, I saw a wheelchair symbol on his rear license plate. He was handicapped and was obviously in need of the nearest parking space. I felt bad that I had harbored such hostile feelings about him, but was gratified that I had not sounded my horn, because then I would really have felt guilty for my lack of consideration.

This incident has helped me to delay my reactions to other frustrating situations until I have more time to evaluate all the circumstances. My motives do not stem from lofty principles, but from my desire to avoid having to feel guilt and remorse for having been foolish or inconsiderate.

Today I shall...

try to withhold impulsive reaction, bearing in mind that a hasty act performed without full knowledge of all the circumstances may cause me much distress.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...